Another dodgy Catholic priest

I can’t hardly wait for Andrei to turn up and point out that other churches do it too, and Lucia to suggest that the church is doing something…just not exactly what that something is.

A former Catholic brother spanked the bare backsides of students for his own sexual gratification and not to discipline them as he claims, a judge says.

The former brother, Edward Mamo, admits he took five boarding students to the school’s laundry where he ordered them to remove their pants and bend over a chest before he struck them with a leather strap.

Mamo would often touch himself and make comments to the students while hitting them, the Victorian County Court heard.

But Mamo’s lawyer Peta Murphy said her client maintained that there was an element of discipline in his actions.

“While there was some sexual element, his motive, in his mind at the the time, was discipline,” she told the court.

Judge Julian Leckie rejected that possibility.

“He used that as a guise to indulge a sexual interest,” he said.

“When he was hitting these boys he was getting some sexual gratification from that.”

Mamo has pleaded guilty to seven counts of indecent assault on seven schoolboys at Monivae College in Hamilton between 1976 and 1980.

In addition to the spankings, Mamo seductively massaged the chest of one student and fondled the genitals of another while wrestling with him on a school bus.

Ms Murphy said Mamo, now 68, had not reoffended in the 30-odd years since his crimes.

Not a priest, a lay brother, and of course this bears striking similarity to the pecadillos of a Labour ex cabinet minister who like many labour mps had been a teacher before wending his way to the trough.

Jimmie

I think his lawyer was right – it was just discipline……..bondage and discipline.

How dare those evil young pretty boys tempt a holy brother in such a way – of course they needed a good spanking to sort them out……..

Still proves the point that the forced catholic doctrine of celibacy is breeding pedos & perverts.

Yet, the only thing that would satisfy people like you and Whale is a full on inquisition, ignoring the fact that the type of person accepted into the priesthood (note that the person in this post was NOT a priest) is a major part of prevention. If a man can’t be celibate, he should not be accepted.

Bunswalla

Not at all, Denier-in-Chief. What would satisfy “people like us” is if catholic priests stopped buggering little boys, and the church stopped systematically enabling it, denying it, covering it up, and quietly moving on those paedophile scumbags who perpetrate it. That would be a very satisfying outcome.

Bunswalla

So, Lucia Maria, and two others don’t want priests to stop buggering boys, or for the church to stop its part in it. Thanks for clearing that up.

I’ll be satisfied when the Church starts taking things seriously. Right now they’re trying to find a happy medium between protecting themselves, and ‘appearing’ to be cooperating.

Take the Australian Commission for example. If Cardinal Pell had come out immediately in vocal support for the commission, or even been involved in bringing it about, then it would show that they had a real interest in putting all this stuff to bed. I would have given him his, and the Church’s due if that were the case, but they’ve been quite obstinate about it all, trying to play the victim.

Instead, they give off the obvious appearance of being dragged begrudgingly into cooperating. If left to the Church, the pedophiles just get moved on. It takes a Police investigation for a case to see the light of day.

The Church is inviting everything being heaped on it. If they can switch to a more honest, open and transparent method with a new Pope, and making a real commitment to cooperating with authorities with the end view that this will put the issue to bed, I’ll be the first applaud them.

If Cardinal Pell had come out immediately in vocal support for the
commission, or even been involved in bringing it about, then it would
show that they had a real interest ….

No. He knew the commission was not going to look at sex abuse where it is most prolific and instead direct itself at the Catholic Church only, into cases that are old rather than what is happening in society today.

To say that his lack of vocal support means that he’s not interested in “putting it to bed” is totally false.

This is unfortunately, the calibre of the comments I have to constantly deal with on this issue.

“Prior to 2001, the primary responsibility for investigating allegations of sexual abuse and disciplining perpetrators rested with the individual dioceses. In 2001, Ratzinger convinced John Paul II to put the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in charge of all investigations and policies surrounding sexual abuse in order to combat such abuse more efficiently.[145][146] According to John L. Allen, Jr., Ratzinger in the following years “acquired a familiarity with the contours of the problem that virtually no other figure in the Catholic Church can claim” and “driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as ‘filth’ in the Church, Ratzinger seems to have undergone something of a ‘conversion experience’ throughout 2003–04. From that point forward, he and his staff seemed driven by a convert’s zeal to clean up the mess”.[147] In his role as Head of the CDF, he “led important changes made in Church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statute of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders.”[148] As the Head of the CDF, Ratzinger developed a reputation for handling these cases. According to Charles J. Scicluna, a former prosecutor handling sexual abuse cases, “Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases, sine acceptione personarum (without exceptions)”.
[147][149]”

With curiosity, I ask; Do you believe that there is no abuse currently
happening in your church? What action would you take if a child of yours
came to you with a report of your parish priest behaving
inappropriately?

Patrick

I have a long webbing strap with a loop in one end – that would go nicely around his ankles & I could then tow him through the streets until only the bloody stumps of his feet were left attached. From there we would negotiate his release – if he said sorry…..

Beyond reproach – would that have possibly been said about the priests who weren’t?

Probably not, from the stories I have read of the credible abuse reports.

Thirty/forty years ago – were people more naive about the fact that priests were men and as prone to wrong-doing as the rest of humanity?

I wouldn’t know, I was very young then.

The age-old question. Why isn’t God giving his priests spiritual support so that they are not harming the flock?

He does, absolutely. However, those who do not take advantage of the spiritual support are in terrible danger, especially if they have major defects in their character which means they shouldn’t have become a priest in the first place.

JC

No it doesn’t excuse it, but it highlights a major problem of the time of the abuse and when its reported. Perhaps the most important document on this is the Jon Jay College of Criminal Justice which investigated priest sexual abuse in the US 1950-2002:

“The Report determined that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time covered by the study.[2] The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s, and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[3]

The surveys filtered information provided from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest’s victims to the research team so that they did not have access to the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed. Of the 4,392 priests who were accused, police were contacted regarding 1,021 individuals and of these, 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences; 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died.”

.. you can find that it takes about 25 years after the abuse before the boys come forward and about 18 years for girls.

So you have low levels of abuse in the 1950s soaring six fold to a peak in the mid 70s and then reducing even faster to 1950 levels in the 1980s as the Church recognised the problem and dealt with the incidence (but not the cases themselves). But then 25-30 years later the Church was hit with a tsunami of historic cases around 2000.

Say what you like, any old organisation hit with such a blizzard is going to struggle to understand, accept and deal fully with the fallout.

Starting to sound a bit like classic hits – the same record over and over. Try the boy scout greatest hits for a change or perhaps the very best of the Brethren, it’s a big seller in small communities you just don’t get to here it with all that Catholic static out there.

Yep. Huge story going on right now about the boy scouts in the US being forced to accept gay scout leaders. They stopped allowing gay scout leaders originally because of the huge abuse problems a number of them (not all) caused.